gangars Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 did a search, didn't see anything posted... Ray Brown made a great point last night after the Skins horrific loss. He said the only real change the Skins needed this season was needing a 2nd WR to compliment Moss rather than an entire new offense. Now, I know alot of you are going to say that it isn't a new offense, it's a hybrid. But after playing football for some time, anytime you have a new coordinator, it is a new offense. In hearing the players speak after the game, the common tone that I heard about how it's a new offense and it'll take time for everyone to get on the same page. Anyone else concerned that the Skins 'over-fixed' a problem that wasn't really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Nope. Saunders will be here when Gibbs is gone. This is the offense Jason Campbell will take to future Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Nope. Saunders will be here when Gibbs is gone. This is the offense Jason Campbell will take to future Super Bowls. Agreed. If we were looking at just this year, then yes, we'd probably be better on O without the change. However, this was a long-term improvement for the team. This offense has a track-record of working so we should be excited to see the development! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4481 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 did a search, didn't see anything posted...Ray Brown made a great point last night after the Skins horrific loss. He said the only real change the Skins needed this season was needing a 2nd WR to compliment Moss rather than an entire new offense. Now, I know alot of you are going to say that it isn't a new offense, it's a hybrid. But after playing football for some time, anytime you have a new coordinator, it is a new offense. In hearing the players speak after the game, the common tone that I heard about how it's a new offense and it'll take time for everyone to get on the same page. Anyone else concerned that the Skins 'over-fixed' a problem that wasn't really necessary? I agree. IMO we should've NOT brought in Saunders. Just like Marvin Lewis, he is only going to be here for only one year until he leaves for a head coaching job. Greg Williams is going to be the Head Coach when Joe Gibbs retires and Campbell and crew are going to have to learn ANOTHER offense once Saunders leaves. I just hope that the team gets adjusted to the offense quickly so that we can make a deep run into the playoffs and maybe a Superbowl. Then it would've been worth it. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Nope. Saunders will be here when Gibbs is gone. This is the offense Jason Campbell will take to future Super Bowls. Only if he's willing to work for GW. But, assuming he is, then yes, you're 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 did a search, didn't see anything posted...Ray Brown made a great point last night after the Skins horrific loss. He said the only real change the Skins needed this season was needing a 2nd WR to compliment Moss rather than an entire new offense. Now, I know alot of you are going to say that it isn't a new offense, it's a hybrid. But after playing football for some time, anytime you have a new coordinator, it is a new offense. In hearing the players speak after the game, the common tone that I heard about how it's a new offense and it'll take time for everyone to get on the same page. Anyone else concerned that the Skins 'over-fixed' a problem that wasn't really necessary? I knew tis all the time, what was wrong with getting Lloyd and ARE, why did we had to to get a whole damn car, why couldn't we just fix the old one. But gibbs made the decision but I guess I gotta trust him hw won three super bowls ( I won none). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMOSS89 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think Gibbs realizes that he aint gonna be around for very long anymore and the best way to contribute to this team is set them up for the future like a) getting young veteran WRs drafting a young QB and developing him c) pretty much declaring who the next head coach will be here d) getting a new OC so that when Gibbs is gone everyone will be on the same page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I have been saying this repeatedly throughout the preseason. We were already close. A team that is within a few plays of the NFC Championship does not need a major overhaul. We have mortgaged our present for...well, I can't even say for the future. I don't think Saunders offense will work here EVER. He's already hinted that JC is not his guy, so it's just a big mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think Gibbs realizes that he aint gonna be around for very long anymore and the best way to contribute to this team is set them up for the future like a) getting young veteran WRs drafting a young QB and developing him c) pretty much declaring who the next head coach will be here d) getting a new OC so that when Gibbs is here everyone will be on the same page Exactly right. You have to look at this as a long-term thing. He'd be doing us a disservice to build this team for one run at the Super Bowl. If we win it, great. But if not, he'd be leaving the cupboard bare. He's being very responsible and putting the future in good hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MossIsDaBoss Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I have a feeling Gibbs may step down next year or the year after. Saunders was a great move and he will be here to run the offense when Gibbs leaves. Williams will be head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 The offense didn't look all that bad to me. It was the defense that was ineffective. They gave up long, sustained drives, that didn't allow our offense onto the field. I thought we had some dull offensive series, but I say give that a little time. We flashed serious potency on offense. Our D is a big concern right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I was a little upset with the redzone offense, not the execution but the play calling. We were so good last year. I think we should use Al's plays to get to the redzone and then gibbs power system to score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbssbbiG Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Nope. Saunders will be here when Gibbs is gone. This is the offense Jason Campbell will take to future Super Bowls. This is line of thinking contradict the { Win All Now } philosophy of throwing away valuable draft picks after draft picks just to acquire the stop gap players like of Mark Brunell, BLloyd, TJ Duckett and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I agree and disagree. I made a thread about this during the preseason called "Al Saunders, good for the long term, bad for the short term" and basically said that it might not be the best idea having a 36 year old QB trying to learn a new offense, when we have Jason Campbell waiting in the wings, missing valuable game reps that he will need to become a starter. I also said that I think Al Saunders offense WILL BE GREAT eventually, but the fact is, we were a playoff team last season with Gibbs offense that featured only a SINGLE big time WR, so the answer for 2006, was simply to get another big time WR which we did. The Al Saunders move, was NOT a bad one, however I do think it is a move that is going to pay off in 2007 and 2008, moreso then 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I was a little upset with the redzone offense, not the execution but the play calling. We were so good last year.I think we should use Al's plays to get to the redzone and then gibbs power system to score. It is just a shame that Cooley was hung out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollinskins Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 You have the same guy pulling the trigger. Gonna get the same results until something changes at QB. No guarantee the results will be better with a change but you can expect consistent play from Brunell which are at best average among his peers. Team got good when ball was placed in Portis hands. We will need more of the same to make playoffs this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 It is just a shame that Cooley was hung out to dry. It's also a shame that we missed opportunities due to execution down there. We fumbled a handoff and had to take a loss. There were two plays where Brunell was rolled to the left only to have everything covered and had to loft the ball out of bounds. I think the magic of the quick-hitter to Sellers might be gone. We need to drop Brunell straight back in that situation and let him use the whole field. If not, he has one or maybe two options, and it's chuck it away and take the FG. Saunders will figure it out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Out of curiosity, why would anyone want Williams as head coach? He stunk in Buffalo. I've never understood the excitement in him being the "heir apparent." He's a great coordinator - lousy head guy. (And, yes, I know Belichik failed in Cleveland...and I know Terrell Davis was a sixth rounder...and I know that Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl...I know all the stock answers). Anyhoo, the whole philosophy on offense both short-term and long-term is a bit of a mess. The offense last year was built around Portis between the tackles, Moss downfield, and Cooley doing everything as an H-back. Now, Portis is hurt and the team apparently is going to run mostly sweeps....Moss is still Moss, I guess...and Cooley is completely out of position and may actually be a liability at tight end. Cooley to me is the intriguing part of this conversion. I don't want to write him off after one game, but if he is going to be doing an awful imitation of Tony Gonzalez all year, then Saunders has eliminated one of the three successful parts of last year's offense in order to "fix it." After watching last night, Randle El might have been the perfect "plug in" guy into last year's scheme. Because all Brunell wants to do on third down is look for a safe short pass. And Randle El is tremendous at getting open within five yards of the line of srimmage and dancing his way for a first down. He could have had 55 catches in last year's offense. And then there's the Brunell/Campbell issue. Brunell is not the future and he may not even be the present. And apparently Campbell scares the daylights out of both Gibbs and Saunders...which, I admit, concerns me a little. It's not even a controversy at this point...it's more of a dilemma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I expressed a similar sentiment when we first hired Saunders in that we didnt need to blow up the offense at all and how I thought we'd regress before showing any progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCnDaHouse Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Sometimes you have to step back, get your balance, before moving forward. I think things will be fine. Al just has to figure out what to do with all his new toys. Same thing with Brunell. MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Native,NC_Fan Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think it's great that Joe is thinking about the future, BUT... like some of the previous posts said, he is trying to have it both ways. Why change the system but not start your "future" qb? Because he obviously feels that this is a playoff-contending team already. (As it is.) But if this team is already a contender, why change the offensive system THIS year? Now this team will have a natural digression this year from the new playbook, and probably next year from the new qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 did a search, didn't see anything posted...Ray Brown made a great point last night after the Skins horrific loss. He said the only real change the Skins needed this season was needing a 2nd WR to compliment Moss rather than an entire new offense. Now, I know alot of you are going to say that it isn't a new offense, it's a hybrid. But after playing football for some time, anytime you have a new coordinator, it is a new offense. In hearing the players speak after the game, the common tone that I heard about how it's a new offense and it'll take time for everyone to get on the same page. Anyone else concerned that the Skins 'over-fixed' a problem that wasn't really necessary? People wonder why every few years Tiger changes his swing. It takes some time to adjust but when he does he is unstoppable. Sometimes you have to take a step back if you want to be able to make a majoor breakthrough down the road. I don't think we "over-fixed" the problem, we are just trying to be THE BEST! That is how you win championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Out of curiosity' date=' why would anyone want Williams as head coach? He stunk in Buffalo. I've never understood the excitement in him being the "heir apparent." He's a great coordinator - lousy head guy. (And, yes, I know Belichik failed in Cleveland...and I know Terrell Davis was a sixth rounder...and I know that Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl...I know all the stock answers).[/quote']Because he's working under one of the best, and he can learn from that and the mistakes he made in Buffalo. Just because you were a failure once doesn't mean that you will be again. Cooley to me is the intriguing part of this conversion. I don't want to write him off after one game, but if he is going to be doing an awful imitation of Tony Gonzalez all year, then Saunders has eliminated one of the three successful parts of last year's offense in order to "fix it." To be honest, I think it is far too early to say things like that. What really is Cooley doing different than last year? I mean, he lined up at TE a lot last year. To say that Cooley can't be a TE tells me that you don't think much of Cooley in the first place. And then there's the Brunell/Campbell issue. Brunell is not the future and he may not even be the present. And apparently Campbell scares the daylights out of both Gibbs and Saunders...which, I admit, concerns me a little. It's not even a controversy at this point...it's more of a dilemma. Huh? Campbell "scares" the coaching staff? I don't think so. If that was true, Gibbs wouldn't have said that Campbell would start if Brunell was out for an extended period. You don't say that about a guy you don't have confidence in. It just makes more sense to me that if you need a guy to come in off the bench to have the vet do it rather than the guy who has never taken a regular season snap. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Why change the system but not start your "future" qb? Because he obviously feels that this is a playoff-contending team already. (As it is.) But if this team is already a contender, why change the offensive system THIS year? Because, Saunders was available this year. Sometimes, you just have to take the hit if you want to get better, and waiting another year, the right guy may not be there. I doubt that this takes us out for the whole year. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hailskinz1991 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Quickly - 2 things...1. Its gonna take at least 4 games for the skinz offense to ramp up 100 percent to speed. 2. You wont be complaining in week 5 when the offense starts to steamroll defenses, and Portis is putting up numbers that make Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson look like chumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.